Our Magazines Article Archives
 

Solar Closes In on Grid Parity

By Richard Baillie, Contributor
October 13, 2011   |   52 Comments
For solar power to experience sustainable growth, developers must target grid parity through addressing system costs, finance, investment and feed-in tariffs.

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

With 26,000 subscribers and a global readership in over 170 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine is targeted at those who make growth happen in renewable industries. Covering policy, technology, finance, markets and more, Renewable Energy World magazine covers all technologies and all markets. Published six times per year, a special Directory of Suppliers Issue is published in July/August which is distributed year round at key renewable energy events worldwide.

52 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 52
October 13, 2011
Richard, great article but I wanted to point out one snafu: you cite 40% growth rates in solar since 2000 and suggest that this is the basis for IEA's projection of 11% global solar power by 2050. This isn't right. In fact, if solar grew at only 35% from now until 2030 we'd have far more solar power than we need globally. And we have in fact seen 68% annual growth in global solar in the last five years, so 35% annual growth over the next couple of decades isn't pie in the sky. So the real issue is not will we have enough solar power - we'll probably have more than we need - but how do we sustain a reliable grid with solar and wind power dominating generation. Places like CA have a huge surplus of natural gas power already on the grid so we can reach our 33% by 2020 mandate without any new balancing generation, according to a recent CAISO report. But once we start going beyond 33% we may have to start getting more creative. And other jurisdictions may have to start considering additional balancing generation or storage options as solar power and wind power continue their vertiginous rates of growth. This is a good problem to have!
No image available
Comment
2 of 52
Anonymous
October 13, 2011
Re the sentence, "Then there is the question of whether grid parity includes the cost of incentives and subsides, FiTs and so on." We can't know as much about grid parity as we would like to know until we have a fair and accurate calculation of the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) across all energy sources. For example, the LCOE tables provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration also exclude the costs of incentives and subsidies (whether for fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.). The International Energy Agency, for example, estimated in early October 2011 "...that (global) subsidies that artificially lower (fossil) fuel prices reached $409 billion in 2010, an increase of almost $110 billion above 2009 levels." The IEA also projects that these fossil fuel subsidies could reach $660 billion in 2020 absent better reforms. The action of calculating LCOEs fairly across all energy sources seems almost intractably elusive, but at some point this work needs to be done in the most comprehensive manner possible.
Comment
3 of 52
October 13, 2011
I define grid parity as the generation of electricity at less cost, including financing charges but not including incentives, than it is available from the grid. On this basis, grid parity has been absolutely achieved in Hawaii and in California for utility customers paying for electricity in the upper tiers of the rate rate structure.

California has a 5-tiered electricity rate scheme that results in an annual residential consumption of 15,000 GWh at rates in the upper three tiers with an average cost of over 30 ¢/kWh, up from 25.1 ¢/kWh in 2008; and, 7,000 GWh in the upper two tiers with a cost of over 33 ¢/kWh, up from less than 31 ¢/kWh in 2008. At over 30 ¢/kWh utility rates and an annual solar insolation in the 1800 kWh /m2 range, a horizontally mounted solar installation yields an annual output of 1450 kWh (AC) / kW (DC), assuming 20% losses (inverter, wiring, dirt, ...). At this level of output, it's become economic for Californians to displace grid electricity purchased at tier 3 rates and above with PV solar.

For example, a solar installation costing $4,350 per kW (AC) while annually saving $435 per kW (AC) implies a 10-year payback. This saving would equal the annual payments on a $4,350, 20-year loan at 7.8%, or 8.8% and 9.3% interest for a 25 and 30-year loan, respectively. If the solar installation were financed at a rate of 6%, the respective annual tax free savings would be $56, $95 and $119 per kW of solar panels, plus insulation from increases in rates for tier 3 and above, which have been averaging over 3%, particularly in the last several years.
No image available
Comment
4 of 52
Anonymous
October 13, 2011
One possibly useful definition of price parity would be the point at which including some solar PV in the generation mix lowers the overall price of electricity. However, this isn't the point at which one should invest in PV because prices for the equipment are dropping rapidly. The optimal purchase point would be when the savings obtained from lowering the overall cost of energy for a given time period exceed the depreciation in value of the PV equipment during that same time period. Depreciation comes from two main categories: the aging of the equipment and the price drop for similar equipment during the considered timeframe. In the near term, costs for large installations are dropping at 10-20% per year, and this factor alone typically exceeds the value of the energy produced in that time frame. Thus, there are not a lot of locations where immediate installation of PV (absent government market distortions) is a wise investment.
Steven
Comment
5 of 52
October 14, 2011
Parity between the cost of retail power vs. the cost of distributed generation kWhs ignores the different basket of services provided and is not an apples to apples comparison. Any consumer wanting high reliability and high power quality will need wires. Wires services cost money. Regulatory tricks like net metering for distributed solar generation are just shell games that shift the cost of wire services to other consumers.

The value of solar generation is equal to the alternative resources that it displaces. For off-grid applications, solar systems can avoid wires costs but these systems also bear the burden of costly storage. Grid-connected solar generation tends to arrive on peak in some markets some of the time which might enhance its value relative the wholesale average price somewhat. However, where solar's market share of grid supply grows, its unfavorable characteristics, like fast ramping, start to dilute its value. Even without considering dilution caused by rising penetration, solar's intermittency means that solar can't claim credit for avoiding much or any capacity costs for upstream wires and generators.

The solar technologies we are installing today were obsolete before they came off the production line. Subsidies, like FIT programs, can stimulate impressive capacity growth figures but they are not sustainable.
Comment
6 of 52
October 14, 2011
Potaeto / potaato. 'Solar' is a family of technologies with a number of application spaces - each with its own economics. As the author has stumbled upon, it's not so cut and dried. Parity, no parity - solar is happening anyway. Regardless of the metric it's the tail of the distribution that matters. Currently, a growth rate of 35% is sustainable if solar is the chosen alternative in ~2.3% of all cases.

The correct bars are marginal cost of power and cost of new capacity. Using current average prices is nonsense. Any fully amortized generator built decades ago can compete at a price point that it couldn't come close to if built today: inflation alone will see to that. Of course, solar isn't ever going to compete with midnight power generation, so that's not even a reasonable comparison (use of average pricing assumes it is). Marginal cost is the cost of meeting the last increment of demand so one metric is the cost of putting additional power on line. Wind and solar have very low run rates and therefore represent the lowest marginal cost of any technology except for load management. If one looks at the hourly power market, one can see marginal prices paid in excess of 0.60 $/kWh in many places. From the perspective of capital cost, the only reasonable comparison for new capacity is other new capacity! The comparison should be between the various means of adding future capacity (to meet increased demand and replace defunct capacity). If one sticks with renewables, then solar competes well with the typical cost today of increasing the capacity of existing hydroelectric facilities. The better metric (I wouldn't claim that there is a perfect one) is the pricing in PPAs associated with new generating capacity currently being built. And again, can solar compete with some fraction of that (realistically, only a fraction is needed to completely drain the solar supply chain).
Comment
7 of 52
October 14, 2011
Really great article and good comments. In my view, the prices will continue to fall and we soon reach the point where it makes sense especailly for businesses to have PV on the roof to offset rising energy prices. The next innovations which will come (because the market is going to be huge) is in storing electric power so that it can be used when needed. This is already starting. For me, PV is changing the entire game, because you can produce power close to where you need it. The savings on grid infrastructure investment will be huge. We will look back at the next few years and realize we were in at the start of something that changed the world.
Comment
8 of 52
October 14, 2011
Why is the REW newsletter not covering LENR, E-Cat developments? (Rossi, Defkalion, Hyperion etc)/ I believe it was covered in an earlier newsletter-last year I think. I would consider LENR virtually equivalent to renewal energy, or at least an alternative energy, since uses relatively small quantities of nickel, which, while not technically renewable, is a very plentiful feed resource. In addition, LENR has zero emissions - no CO2 or radiation. If for no other reason than it has the near-term potential to compete/replace most other forms of power generation by virtue of extremely low price per KWH. It would be nice if REW would track their progress.
Comment
9 of 52
October 14, 2011
Thanks for your encouraging analysis on prospects for grid parity PV, Richard.

When would you estimate that the general discussion of solar PV will expand to frequently include residential rooftop systems?

I seldom see more than brief comments in articles here at Renewables Access. I imagine cost is still a big obstacle there, but maybe I'm not seeing that discussion here because this newsletter is primarily industry-focused.

Is there a different news letter I should be reading for residential PV articles, analysis and other information?

Something like HOME POWER, perhaps?

Thanks again,

Colin Keizer
Comment
10 of 52
October 14, 2011
Tom Adams I would agree that "wire service" that you refer to is a necessity that needs to be paid for in some way including residential customers who supply more power than the take through their PV equipment (my farm included). You do not mention the value of distributed power generation for general security or the fact that the power is much cleaner and more useful per watt than what is generally out on the lines. I suppose, to the power companies, the more they can meter, the better their bottom line, though. As far as the equipment coming off the lines being obsolete, if you have some of that useless equipment, I'll take it and I bet I can get some use out of it.

Thanks GeraldR for your comment. You must be an economist, using that language. I appreciate your insight about needing to compare cost of new generation equipment to equivalent new equipment rather than old equipment that has already been depreciated. What is your source of information for saying that solar is already at grid parity when comparing to other power generation? If you have something web based that is intelligible to non-economists, I would appreciate that.
Comment
11 of 52
October 14, 2011
Steven, we are probably at an inflection point in California with respect to the use of residential PV to minimize the use of tier 3, 4 and 5 electricity usage. The after-tax ROI of this cherry picking is currently over 10% if you include the avoidance of the annual 3%+ rate increases across these tiers, even allowing for 0.25 – 0.5% annual degradation in solar module output. As you pointed out, with the installed price of solar decreasing by 10-20% yearly, a 10% ROI may not currently appear attractive in the short term; however, it would still be attractive in the long term albeit somewhat illiquid.
No image available
Comment
12 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
One of the primary assumptions in the solar industry is: "if the cost of something gets low enough, everyone will automatically buy it." In my mind there is no guarantee that solar power will become mainstream when it costs approximately the same, or even less than conventional sources. Here's why:

http://solar-strategies.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-grid-parity-matter.html
Comment
13 of 52
October 15, 2011
What does "grid parity" mean for the planet? It could be the tipping point...or the turning point.

http://community.acumenfund.org/profiles/blogs/1bpp-10-the-tipping-point
No image available
Comment
14 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
The author of comment #11 writes: "The 'market price referent' is an annual calculation of the anticipated 20-year levelized cost of energy of a new combined-cycle gas turbine in California, and serves as a proxy for the cost of building new non-renewable power.

Of that 8.6 GW of signed contracts, 4,408 MW is below the MPR . So there we have it. Massive amounts of solar, for less than the cost of the fossil fuel alternative."

This isn't quite right. The MPR includes out-of-date pricing for natural gas (new technologies have led to a significant drop in natural gas prices). It also includes environmental surcharges for greenhouse gases and a very generous time of day (TOD) enhancement for solar PV, which is buried in the fine print. Thus, it is well above the true price of new combined cycle generation. On the other side of the equation the solar PV vendors benefit from huge subsidies (the big ticket one is the 30% Federal subsidy). When all these things are considered CA will be paying more than double the price of dispatchable generation for intermittent generation. One can debate whether or not the environmental benefits warrant such costs, but we should not dissemble about the costs.
Steven
No image available
Comment
15 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
Northernpiker:
Regarding comment #12, I'd be careful about a long term analysis of the benefit of a solar system as it is hard to judge market prices and utility fees decades in advance. Net metering, for instance, constitutes a significant subsidy for solar PV owners, but at some point the utilities are going to have to increase fees to recover the cost of providing grid connectivity. CA's tier pricing system isn't carved in stone either; in most states energy is not priced in this manner, one merely pays a flat rate and the average US residential rate is only 10 cents/kWh.

Mean costs for residential solar PV installs are about 70% higher than for utility scale PV and commercial scale installs are only slightly higher than utility scale. Consequently, the bulk of new capacity is going into larger installs. One can view residential PV owners as small-scale energy producers that have a cost structure that is ~70% higher than larger competitors. From this perspective ratepayers and taxpayers should really question the wisdom of subsidizing these inefficient producers.
Steven
No image available
Comment
16 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
Regarding comments 16 & 17, I'd be careful about a long-term analysis of the benefit of a fossil fuel system, as it is hard to judge market prices and utility fees decades (or even a couple of years) in advance. Natural gas prices, fluctuating over a range of six hundred fifty percent during the past decade alone, indicate unpredictable volatility. Natural gas producers in the USA currently do not like the low prices they are getting for their product, so the current push is towards exporting natural gas to drive prices upward. Regarding energy subsidies, as one example, Americans spent $72.5 billion for fossil fuel subsidies, $16.8 billion for corn ethanol subsidies, and $12.2 billion for traditional renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) for 2002-2008. The current global fossil fuel subsidy (comment 2) is roughly one half trillion dollars and headed ever upward. Of course, the fossil fuels industry and its apologists work very hard to ensure that "externalities" (air, land and water pollution; health costs, etc.) are not counted in subsidy costs. However, the genie is now out of the bottle re placing a price on carbon, and its effects can only be to drive fossil fuel prices upward in the long term. One can debate whether or not fossil fuels will provide sufficient benefits over total costs, including externalities, to compete with cleaner, more modern and more efficient energy sources in the long term, but we should not dissemble about the costs.
No image available
Comment
17 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
Regarding statements made in comment #18:
The author of the comment says: "Americans spent $72.5 billion for fossil fuel subsidies, $16.8 billion for corn ethanol subsidies, and $12.2 billion for traditional renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) for 2002-2008"

$72.5 billion is a wildly inflated value that has been proposed by the ELI. For example, they count the low income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) as a fossil fuel subsidy. This is actually money given to poor people for energy assistance and it imposes no limit whatever on the type of energy purchased. Even if these poor people rushed out and spent every penny on coal, only the profit on such sales would be the amount that the fossil fuel industry would benefit by and such profits are only a few percent of sales. A fair estimate of the subsidies to fossil fuels in the US might be in the range of $5-10 Billion per year and this alters the price of a kWh of electricity by a small fraction of a penny.

Concerning the "roughly one half trillion dollars" of "global fossil fuel subsidy" this concerns consumption subsidies in the developing world only. For example Iran subsidizes the price of oil sold to its own citizens to the tune of about $100 Billion/ year. Consumption subsidies in the US and Europe are zero, and the effect of these subsides is to raise prices in the developed world because they stimulate excess consumption in the developing nations.

continued
No image available
Comment
18 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
continuation of 19:

I will also note that the author of comment #18 is overly fixated on fossil fuels. When deciding if solar PV is going to be a safe investment one also has to consider the possibility that wind, geothermal, various solar technologies, etc., will lead to lower energy prices over the lifetime of a set of purchased panels. The sharp near term depreciation in value of a set of PV panels purchased today is virtually certain because prices are plummeting and there is no sign of a reversal in this trend anytime soon. Predicting price structures decades away is a very tenuous game. Consequently, residential PV is a risky investment.
Steven
No image available
Comment
19 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
Re comment 19, the ELI fossil fuel subsidy value is by no means "wildly overstated," rather it is by ELI's admission seriously understated because of those nagging "externalities" that add huge, oft-hidden but real costs to the production and use of fossil fuel energy. Such costs are not apparent in producing cleaner energies, so cleaner energies should get a boost when it comes to talking about grid parity, the subject of the article. I do agree with comment 20 that residential solar PV is a risky investment, and data show it is far more risky than investments in a wide variety of other forms of solar, wind and geothermal power. Simultaneously, for reasons given in comment 18, natural gas is also a risky investment, as are investments in coal, oil, and nuclear power. As Steven notes, predicting price structures decades away for any of these is a very tenuous game. Decades of data on energy cost trends, however, show steadily declining costs for wind, solar PV, concentrating solar-thermal electric power, biofuels, and geothermal power over the long term, while comparative fossil fuel and nuclear power costs show continuing increases marked also with substantial volatility.
No image available
Comment
20 of 52
Anonymous
October 15, 2011
Regarding this part of comment #21: "Re comment 19, the ELI fossil fuel subsidy value is by no means "wildly overstated," rather it is by ELI's admission seriously understated because of those nagging "externalities" that add huge, oft-hidden but real costs to the production and use of fossil fuel energy. "

We should draw a clear distinction between a subsidy--which is a sum of money given by a government to an industry for the purpose of allowing the price of a particular good or service to be competitive--and an externality. ELI claimed to estimate subsidies but did so in a very biased manner. Externalities don't affect prices so they don't have a place in estimating return on investment and similar concepts. Naturally, possible environmental damage (whether this is pollution from fossil fuels or noise from wind turbines) is an important consideration in determining energy policy but we should not conflate these considerations with subsides. Unless some government policy was to monetize environmental considerations, say by a carbon tax, these don't have any place in a discussion of grid parity, which relates to price competitiveness.

I also repeat that one should not just be concerned about residential PV competing with fossil fuels, it is also much more expensive than wind, geothermal, and utility scale solar projects too. Given these uncertainties and the rapid price depreciation, a residential solar PV installation is, in most locations, a questionable investment.
Steven

Steven
Comment
21 of 52
October 15, 2011
Thanks for that ROI analysis, Steven.

I think that begins to explain why I don't see more discussion of working, installed residential solar PV systems on RENEWABLE ACCESS. It would be very useful to me to hear from folks who have made the choice to try it and what they think of all the other "returns" on their investment. Does the sense of independence and the satisfaction of having power when storms shut down the neighbors begin to nibble away at that mountain of debt?

At what cost of a new installation would the investment seem less questionable in the more strictly financial sense?

Personally, I look forward to someday purchasing a few panels from Home Depot, installing them myself, and running a few DC lights, maybe an attic fan and some hobby/craft tools. Maybe recharge my PC tablet too. No need, or want for the grid in these ruminations. Of course, eventually, I'd want to add more PV panels to power a freezer and some other large appliances. That would be more of a technical challenge, but I'm hoping costs for residential solar PV systems will be vastly reduced by ten years from now.

What do you think?

Colin Keizer
Comment
22 of 52
October 15, 2011
Steven, I agree that (unsubsidized) residential solar PV is a questionable investment in most locations; however, it can yield a reasonable return in specific locations with residential electricity rates in the 30¢/kWh range and above – Japan, Italy, California and Hawaii. The numbers for California look good. Yes, there is the risk that the cost of solar will continue to drop much faster than its historic (1998 -2010) rate of 5%. The risk of moderating electricity rate increases is low. The annual 3% rate increase for California's tier 3 and above usage should continue since it enables tier 1 and 2 rate increases to be held in the 1% range. (According to EIA data, the US average rate increase in the last 20 years has been 2%.)
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-5047e.pdf

I believe that the major investment issue with residential PV solar is the lack of liquidity for the homeowner. Home insulation as an investment has a much higher ROI than PV solar but it has a similar liquidity issue. Third party financing of solar should help. As for the aesthetics of PV solar, ....

In summary, if grid parity is a net reduction of your cost of electricity, then it has occurred for residential PV solar in a few places on this planet and will occur in many more places in the next several years. Increasing utility rates and dropping PV cost guarantee it.
Comment
23 of 52
October 15, 2011
Richard,

I would like to see the Ernst and Young reports you refer to. I looked on their website and didn't find them. Could you provide a link, or a title or author?

Thanks,
Andy
Comment
24 of 52
October 16, 2011
Steven makes certain points about the monetary risks of purchasing PV. While there are certainly business risks that some new technology is going to come along and make energy 'too cheap to monitor' as nuclear was said to do for so long, what we really need is a lot of people out here making the case that there are other factors that have high value other than just comparing what one fuel source costs verses another. I have to admit that offset costs were/are important to me in buying the 15kw of residential that I have, but the main selling points that I see are improvements in air and water quality for humans and the rest of nature, personal economic security which also improves my community's security, another serious selling point - a reduced need to fight militarily for oil and other fossil fuels.
Comment
25 of 52
October 16, 2011
NorthernPiker, for my own purchasing decisions I'm sure you are right about liquidity being an obstacle. I can afford time and money for relatively small experiments, like a solar thermal air heater for my hobby workroom. I cannot afford to even think about PV arrays for the entire house.

The 'risk' of solar PV dropping in cost over the next several years is also a significant obstacle to my new installation purchase. When I look at $400 laptop computers today and compare their performance with the $2000 laptop computer I purchased not that many years ago I can only believe there will be MUCH better deals in residential solar PV five years from today. Of course that's just a guess, but it definitely impacts my decision making.

Colin Keizer
Comment
26 of 52
October 16, 2011
PV has already reached grid parity with oil fired electricity. Although this type of electricity generation has largely been replaced in the US, there is still quite a bit around the world. PV powered LED lamps are replacing kerosene lamps in Africa and India - because they are cheaper to operate.

Natural gas prices in the US are likely to go up, as an increasing number of CNG vehicles are built. CNG is roughly 75 cents/gallon equivalent. PV could be cheaper than gas fired electricity by 2015.
Comment
27 of 52
October 17, 2011
Here is an encouraging article on the potential for more residential solar PV in the next few years.

http://www.electroiq.com/articles/pvw/2011/10/a-solar-roof-on-every-us-residence.html?cmpid=EnlEIQDailyOctober172011

Interesting. I would have thought that commercial building owners had more reasons to install PV and fewer obstacles to doing so. It is good to see these authors' positive assessment of the residential market.

Colin Keizer
Comment
28 of 52
October 17, 2011
the next frontier for energy investments in solar power is most defintely AFRICA
Comment
29 of 52
October 18, 2011
Two common counterarguments:
1. Natural gas is cheap. Again, a 20+ year CBA based on overnight prices which always drives me nuts. NG is currently very cheap compared to the 10 year average and 70% off the most recent peak. This will not last. Current low prices are driven by a North American oversupply condition that will not persist in the context of a global economy. First, NG producers want more margin and are constraining production in order to drive higher prices. Second, the export market is set to rapidly expand - demand drives prices. Even the short term outlook seems to be a 25 to 50% uptick. The 20 year outlook is pretty much an overall continuation of the past 20 year trend line with the usual highly volatile excursions of NG pricing. Based on the current position, the only direction is up.

2. Storage is expensive: not so much. Having studied the potential for consumer owned storage systems, I found that current storage technologies have good ROI if only used to time shift demand in TOU markets. As always, cost is driven down by demand. Some current active markets include South Africa, where QoS is execrable, and the Australian outback, where wires are hard to find. In these markets, storage solutions are a necessity and, not surprisingly, very good multi-mode inverter/charge controllers are available. Typically, these systems integrate a mix of generating capacity, external line feed if available and backup generation(diesel/gas)with storage. With respect to consumer owned solar, the existance of a local storage system significantly reduces the installed cost as the inverter capacity already exists. 20 year costs range from 0.10 $/kWh, for high maintenance storage,to 0.70 $/kWh, for the illogically popular automotive style Li ion. Best choice appears to be low maintenance conventional technology at ~0.37 $/kWh. 1kWh (per day) capacity == 7300 kWh over 20 years so the incremental cost of local storage is less than typical grid delivery charges.
Comment
30 of 52
October 19, 2011
Take the subsidies off COAL, NG and Nuclear and you can see they are not cheap. Add the limits on resources and water used and they are very high cost.
Solar is making the most when we use the most , at the Peak Time of day, it sleeps when we sleep. It used no water and makes no pollution. It's very valuable. Wind needs storage and the new advanced Electric Vehicles can do that and more. Geo-Thermal is steady and makes a nice base load power sourrce as does hydro.

We have EVerything we need, let's clear the facts and get moving.
With 4 Kw of GRID Tied solar I run my home, car and get credits for helping the utility during Peak Time Of Day. I use no water for power and make no pollution. It's paid for itself and provides local jobs.
Comment
31 of 52
October 23, 2011
In theory, if renewables were able to replace all fossil fuels, we would be paying some kind of grid usage fee.

I just built a spreadsheet to see how low the cost of a rooftop solar installation has to go to reach cost parity here. The cost of installing enough rooftop solar here in Seattle to replace my electricity use (which is higher than average because I own a Leaf) would have to go from an estimated cost of $78,000 today to roughly $7,500. That's never going to happen. The widows in my house are worth twice that amount.

Even in Tucson the cost would have to go from $48,000 today to roughly $10,000.

And ...how would you force 310 million Americans, the majority of which don't believe in global warming, or evolution for that matter, to go into debt tens of thousands of dollars to put solar panels on their roofs?

Theoretically, if every house in America was covered in solar panels we would all still have to pay utilities anyway to create and maintain a grid for us to tie into. Without a grid, solar panels are literally worthless.

You can see the spreadsheet here:

http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/solarparity.xls

We will need nuclear to make up the difference. Exceeding 33% with wind and solar is an untested hypothesis. Shouldn't be betting our children's futures on untested hypothesis. We'll need a lot of nuclear in the mix.

We don't want to be locked into massive amounts of natural gas infrastructure just because of a temporary drop in fuel costs.

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2011/10/electrification-nation-why-natural-gas.html
Comment
32 of 52
October 23, 2011
Russ, you have made some valid points. Thanks for posting your calculations and assumptions. It makes discussion easier and more meaningful and also brings out some neglected issues – grid charges, solar module maintenance costs and a 20% system DC-to-AC conversion loss (inverter, wiring, dirt and bird droppings).

However, your monthly savings for the Seattle case should be the same as for Phoenix since the Seattle system, at 10.89 kW, is 67% larger than the Phoenix system at 6.52 kW to compensate for the 67% higher solar radiance in Phoenix.

Now with identical monthly electricity savings of $90.90 in Seattle and Phoenix, the paybacks for the post-incentive $48,371.90 and $21,826.94 solar installations are 44.3 years and 20.0 years, which represent a negative annual ROI and a positive 1.8% annual ROI, respectively. That is, they are terrible/ poor investments without even including a grid charge.

It's a different story in California with a 5-tier rate scheme, where the residential rates across tiers 3, 4 and 5 average 31¢ per kWh and annual solar radiance averages 1450 kWh (AC) / m2. The 15,000 GWh of residential electricity consumed in these tiers could be provided by 10 GW of residential solar PV at a positive ROI without incentives; and , at a good ROI if residential solar PV were to cost $4.2 / W(DC), the average cost for residential PV in Germany in 2010, as per a Sept 2011 LBNL report.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-5047e.pdf
Comment
33 of 52
October 23, 2011
How would we convince 310 million Americans to go into debt tens of thousands of dollars to put solar panels on their roofs?

Two words: rolling brownout.

Coming to a power line near you.

I'm from the Seattle region. There are several one-second power outages, seems like every day but probably isn't. I put a battery on my desktop computer power supply because I must. Of course, my laptop has a built-in battery. On rare occasion I have to replace a room light bulb that pops during the power fluctuations. I can live with that nuisance.

We also have a power outage of several minutes to several hours at least once each year. My family has several wind-up flashlights for those days. We have wind-up and battery powered radios also. My CNC projects get interrupted and sometimes broken. Other projects are delayed. More light bulbs pop and get replaced. This is quite annoying, but we can live with it.

About once every five years we have a power outage of more than one day, sometimes more than one week. This usually happens in winter. Our gas furnace does not get electricity to ignite the pilot light. We shiver until the extra blankets, sweaters and heavy socks come out. We cook in our fireplace, Weber grill or camping stoves. Once we had to compost the entire contents of a freezer that thawed out.

After that we bought a gasoline generator. I hate the noise, the stink and the threat of carbon monoxide poisoning. We have to do maintenance on it before we use it, because of course we don't touch it when we don't need it. Gasoline just keeps getting more expensive, and it's not always possible to buy it when the power goes out at the gas station. It's not the world's best solution.

I believe a small solar PV array shouldn't be thousands of dollars of debt. I would cheerfully purchase that much PV to keep our freezer running, power a microwave oven and maybe light up a lamp or two.

IF the price is right.

Colin Keizer
No image available
Comment
34 of 52
Anonymous
October 27, 2011
Solar energy requires heat from radation to start two hazardous chemical reaction in an enclosed area to produce energy with carbon by products in an ozone atmosphere and adds VOC to the surrounding ozone layer and still it is unpredictable and inefficient
No image available
Comment
35 of 52
Anonymous
October 27, 2011
For comment 36 buy a NG generator Seattle has too many rainy cloudy days for PV
No image available
Comment
36 of 52
Anonymous
October 27, 2011
Came across an article on heat

Most people will agree that the record hot spell this summer has been unbearable, but it's equally taxing on solar panels. You would think hot temperatures equal a lot of sunny weather and this would be great for solar panels. Sun is a photovoltaic panel's best friend; however, high temperatures can be their worst enemy.

Humidity also plays a part in inefficiency
Comment
37 of 52
October 27, 2011
Heats not a big issue on my Solon PV panels , maybe 2-3 % and I'm in Arizona. It's sure beats a Nuclear plant that has to go to low power when heat is high like France had happen this summer and last.

No pollution, no water use and good for 50 years, I love it.
Comment
38 of 52
October 29, 2011
'...It's sure beats a Nuclear plant that has to go to low power when heat is high like France had happen this summer and last...'

Ah, your solar panels quit working altogether every night and on rainy days.

Most nuclear designs use rivers, oceans and lakes as heat sinks but don't actually use up water. Your panels would be useless without a grid using either nuclear or fossil fuels to stabilize solar and wind contributions. Nuclear produces roughly the same GHG per kWh as PV solar on a life cycle basis. Fossil fuels produce up to 15 times more GHG per kWh than nuclear on a life cycle basis.
Comment
39 of 52
October 29, 2011
Russ, Double check and you'll see you also go to sleep at night while my solar panels sleep.
Nuclear does use up water check Dr Michael Pasqualettis book on water use by power source that has been prea reviewed.
Check where your uranium comes from, 104 plants and they import 95% from Candada and Russia.
Check where your waste goes, nuclear stored on site at 60 tone in Palo Verde, for 2 thousand years? with no leaks ?
Nuclear is the highest subsidies on any power, dumps extra at night since it can't ramp down, make deadly waste and uses water up!

PV is zero watse, zero water, ramps up and down like humans do and can be stored in batteries or used to reduce peak energy and shuts down off peak, the perfect power.
Comment
40 of 52
October 30, 2011
Jim,

Most power plants don't shut off at night. Lights are most useful then, and people tend to use a lot of power between 4:00 and 10:00 when your panels have stopped producing much, and between 7:00 am to 10:00 am, before your panels produce much, and then there are those rainy days.

I'm not arguing against the use of solar panels. I'm trying to educate solar panel enthusiasts (of which I am one) to stop spreading disinformation about nuclear generated electricity, which, next to renewables is the lowest carbon source available. Renewables are great but can't do it all, not even close. Nuclear could help maximize renewables contribution. Passing along inaccurate information about nuclear could hurt renewables in the long run. Google "Dunning Kruger" effect.

Then try to read and comprehend :"Geographical wind smoothing, supergrids and energy storage."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/29/gws-sg-es/

"...PV is zero watse, zero water, ramps up and down like humans do and can be stored in batteries or used to reduce peak energy and shuts down off peak, the perfect power...".

It takes a great deal of energy to make aluminum, glass, copper, and silicon, the components of solar panels. and at the end of their lives, they become waste. There is no such thing as perfect power.

Your solar panels have not caused the power company to use less fuel, therefore they have done nothing to reduce emissions. For them to become effective, they have to become much more numerous and be connected in a redesigned grid that will require substantial help from sources that can stabilize solar's intermittent quality. Promote solar but don't do it at the expense of nuclear. They are are allies, not competitors.
Comment
41 of 52
November 6, 2011
The price of solar energy has been falling so fast that we can buy solar panels at less than $1 per Watt today, while the articles indicates the price of $1.50 per Watt. Just this year, solar energy costs have fallen down by almost 25 - 33%. The main overhead cost is due to the current method of specialized installation which can be eliminated with the use of micro inverters. Already Sharp is shipping solar panels integrated with micro inverters which can be installed on residential buildings in 3 - 4 hours by local electricians.

If we really tax carbon emissions of fossil fuels as they should be, solar energy has already reached or even surpassed grid parity. While policy makers in America are still dancing to the false propaganda of fossil fuel industry, solar energy has been making major strides in the last few years, thanks to the wise far sighted policies in places like Germany, Spain, China and California. If other states in USA follow the model set by California, America can again be the leader in solar energy revolution.

Check the latest solar energy costs at the following:
http://pvinsights.com/
http://www.solarserver.com/service/pvx-spot-market-price-index-solar-pv-modules.html
http://www.alibaba.com/products/solar_pv_system/--100705.html
Comment
42 of 52
November 7, 2011
Russ, Get all the facts. Nuclear is the most expensive power in the world. It uses water and creates dealy waste with no solution in site. The US imports 95% of the uranium used in the 104 nuclear plants from Canada and Russia.
Nuclear reactors have to be shut down to refule every 18 months. It takes 1 to 6 weeks it refuel.

Yes we use some power from 4-10 pm but hardly any Off Peak overnight and the plants that can't be ramped down so they don't over produce and waste tons of energy are COAL and Nuclear. Centralized power also loses 5-10% over the GRID. Solar is right where to use it and runs highest right when you need it. Produces zero pollution and uses zero water.
Comment
43 of 52
November 7, 2011
Jim, I'm a big fan of solar. I also drive a Leaf. Nuclear is solar's ally in the fight against fossil fuels. You don't seem to know much about power engineering, nuclear in particular. Google Dunning-Kruger effect. Promote solar but consider not including a critique of nuclear as part of that promotion. Consider reading the following articles:

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2010/02/reframing-nuclear-power-as-ally-of.html

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2011/05/dirty-baseload-centralized-renewable.html

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2011/04/parsing-nuclear-cost-argument.html
Comment
44 of 52
November 8, 2011
Despite all the pretenses from the dogmatic nuclear energy ideologues and nuclear industry paid lobbyists, nuclear energy is dead as a cold turkey for a long time to come. If it is such a wonderful idea, how come nuclear industry cannot get any funding from capital markets? Also, nuclear industry refuses to bear the total burden of possible catastrophic failures.

Apparently, the cleanup of Fukushima disaster is going to take decades and will cost more than $ 1 Trillion to clean up. Even then, the place close to the nuclear plant will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Good news is that solar energy is less expensive than nuclear energy right now. In addition, nuclear energy has the added cost and danger of storing radioactive materials for thousands of years. In spite of all these stark facts, why would anyone think that nuclear energy is a wonderful idea?

As many scientists have warned, the cooling systems in nuclear plants are susceptible to catastrophic failures due to natural disasters, accidents or terrorist acts. It is the main reason why Germany has plans to shut down all nuclear power plants and rapidly move towards nuclear free renewable energy.

100% nuclear free and carbon-free renewable energy is possible now with the rapidly falling price of solar and wind energy. This should be the goal of all rational thinking people with concern for the environment and coming generations. David Friedman, the energy industry expert and author of the book "Winning Our Energy Independence" and Arjun Makhijani, the author of the free ebook "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free" have laid out the case for 100% fossil fuel free and nuclear free renewable energy plan for America and the world.

http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Our-Energy-Independence-Insider/dp/1423601564
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/
Comment
45 of 52
November 12, 2011
vasuki said:

---".. Despite all the pretenses from the dogmatic nuclear energy ideologues and nuclear industry paid lobbyists, nuclear energy is dead as a cold turkey for a long time to come. .."---

Despite all the pretenses from the dogmatic anti-nuclear energy ideologues and solar industry paid lobbyists, solar energy remains an almost imperceptible contribution to humanity's energy needs and this will be true for a long time to come . I'm a big fan of solar but sometimes its better to face reality. It will need a lot of assistance from nuclear.

---".. If it is such a wonderful idea, how come nuclear industry cannot get any funding from capital markets? .."---

Large custom built nuclear plants are capital intensive. It takes a lot of money up front to build them, even though they pay for themselves many times over. Kinda like the $60K I would have to put up front for solar, betting they would eventually pay for themselves before I die. According to a recent DOE report, the future of nuclear will probably be smaller (vastly less capital intensive) modular reactors that can be placed closer to load to support renewables.

---".. Also, nuclear industry refuses to bear the total burden of possible catastrophic failures. .."---

Educate yourself by reading the Wikipedia article on that subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

---".. Apparently, the cleanup of Fukushima disaster is going to take decades and will cost more than $ 1 Trillion to clean up. .."---

Oh yeah? I heard it would take a million years and cost $100 billion trillion. In reality, the Japanese government reported last week that it would cost about 5% of the total cost of the natural disaster, $11.5 billion.
Comment
46 of 52
November 12, 2011
---".. Even then, the place close to the nuclear plant will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years. .."---

Ah, even the nuclear plant at Chernobyl continued to produce electricity with its remaining reactors for 14 years after the accident.

---".. Good news is that solar energy is less expensive than nuclear energy right now.."---

I'm a big fan of solar but what you just said isn't true.

---".. In addition, nuclear energy has the added cost and danger of storing radioactive materials for thousands of years. .."---

That cost has already been paid to the government by the utilities and is reflected in the very competitive electric rates from nuclear power.

---".. In spite of all these stark facts, why would anyone think that nuclear energy is a wonderful idea? .."---

One problem with that argument ...little, if anything you said is factual.

---".. As many scientists have warned, the cooling systems in nuclear plants are susceptible to catastrophic failures due to natural disasters, accidents or terrorist acts..."---

Please, Japan was hit with a magnitude 9 quake and 30 foot tsunami, and their half century old, badly damaged nuclear plant killed nobody. Nuclear power plants are designed by engineers, not scientists. New designs would be as different from the half century old power plants as iPhones are to transistor radios. I saw a study last year that suggests corn ethanol may be quietly killing via malnutrition, over 100,000 people a year. Cars easily kill that many per year and on and on.
Comment
47 of 52
November 12, 2011
---".. It is the main reason why Germany has plans to shut down all nuclear power plants and rapidly move towards nuclear free renewable energy..."---

Germany gets 40% of it electricity from coal and is building ten new coal plants. Instead of closing down their coal, they have chosen to close down their source of carbon free electricity. The German people have proven to be capable of making gargantuan, historic, brutal, and really stupid mistakes.

---".. 100% nuclear free and carbon-free renewable energy is possible now with the rapidly falling price of solar and wind energy. .."---

Actually not. Wind and solar are too intermittent to do the job alone. They will need help from nuclear to defeat coal.

---".. This should be the goal of all rational thinking people with concern for the environment and coming generations .."---

An admirable goal but not a realistic one, especially given our fiscal and time constraints to reduce carbon emissions. Promoting solar is a good idea. Critiquing nuclear as part of that promotion is disingenuous, and may well do irreparable harm to future generations.

---".. David Friedman, the energy industry expert and author of the book .."---

There are dozens of books published annually about UFOs, that does constitute proof that there are UFOs.
Comment
48 of 52
November 12, 2011
The replies by Russ Finley to my earlier comments display the dogmatic nature of nuclear energy proponents. However, the following major insurmountable problems with nuclear energy make it unfit for our current needs.

* Right now, solar energy is less expensive than nuclear energy. Why should we build new nuclear power plants, when we have cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives?
Ref: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/

* Cooling system is the Achilles heel of nuclear power plants. It is impossible or too expensive to protect cooling systems from terrorist attacks.

* Spent nuclear fuels are lying in many nuclear power plants which is not a safe system. No state wants to allow repository to safely store the spent nuclear materials for thousands of years.

* Even with the best case scenarios, nuclear energy cannot provide more than 5% of world's energy needs which can be easily compensated by additional solar or wind energy.

* Nuclear energy poses proliferation problems and hence not suitable to be implemented in countries aspiring to possess nuclear weapons. In contrast, solar energy can be safely implemented in all parts of the world.

* No one wants new nuclear power plants in their own back yard (NIMBY), not even the ardent proponents of nuclear energy.

* It is time nuclear energy industry stop coat tailing cleaner renewable energy like solar and wind. Nuclear energy should be judged on its own merit taking into account the huge problems associated with the nuclear energy.
Comment
49 of 52
November 13, 2011
"... The replies by Russ Finley to my earlier comments display the dogmatic nature of nuclear energy proponents...."

I would be better described as a dogmatic low carbon energy proponent. Germany is opting to keep its coal instead of its low carbon source of energy. In fact, ten new coal plants are currently being constructed. This is one of the dumbest moves I've seen a government make in decades.

I recall a debate I had many years ago with a creationist. I soon realized that part of his problem was a stunning lack of knowledge on the subject (evolution). You have the same problem. Google Dunning-Kruger effect. Then read:

Green Parrots : http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2011/07/green-parrots.html

. "... However, the following major insurmountable problems with nuclear energy make it unfit for our current needs ..."

One of our greatest current needs is a reduction in green house gases. Nuclear energy certainly meets that current need.

. "...* Right now, solar energy is less expensive than nuclear energy ..."

That isn't true. It would cost the Average American about $45,000 to replace their electricity use with solar panels, even in Tucson. See

http://www.solar-estimate.org/?page=solar-calculator

http://www.findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0049SPBMQ/
Comment
50 of 52
November 13, 2011
'... Why should we build new nuclear power plants, when we have cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives?...'

I'm a big fan of solar but we don't have cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives than the combination of solar and nuclear. You're counting angels on the head of a pin. To keep the lights on coast to coast at night and on cloudy days without nuclear would require some kind of trillion dollar super grid of unknown design and reliability. Nuclear would go a long way to maximize the use of solar.

You are wanting to bet my children's futures on an uninformed hypothesis. If somebody starts tracking accidents and deaths caused by the installation and maintenance of tens of million of solar panels on roof tops you can bet it will kill and maim more people than nuclear has, but risk is part of life and I would still support solar if it killed a hundred times more people than nuclear. 40,000 kill themselves in cars annually.

* Cooling system is the Achilles heel of nuclear power plants. It is impossible or too expensive to protect cooling systems from terrorist attacks. '... ...'

...and also not true.

. '...* Spent nuclear fuels are lying in many nuclear power plants which is not a safe system ...'

Which is all the proof you need to know that they don't generate a lot of volume, and because, after half of a century of nuclear power, that waste has yet to kill anybody. The above statement works against you. It sits in their parking lots because of people like you. It gets reprocessed in France, reducing the volume ten fold. It will all eventually be dealt with safely.

"...No state wants to allow repository to safely store the spent nuclear materials for thousands of years...."

Translation: The ill-informed anti-nuclear lobby keeps the waste sitting in parking lots.
Comment
51 of 52
November 13, 2011
"... In contrast, solar energy can be safely implemented in all parts of the world ..."

Ah, no. Here in Seattle, we get about 7 times less solar energy than say, Tucson. This makes solar here much more expensive, and therefore less desirable. What we do have is a lot of precipitation. So most of our low emission energy comes from hydro ...not a good option in Tucson.

And remember, without some kind of super smart grid spanning the globe, solar can only supplement more reliable sources, and the cost of that grid would be gargantuan, assuming it can be done at all.

. "... * No one wants new nuclear power plants in their own back yard (NIMBY), not even the ardent proponents of nuclear energy..."

That's also not true. I'd have no problem with it at all.

"... * It is time nuclear energy industry stop coat tailing cleaner renewable energy like solar and wind...."

Now that's just odd. My posts are about enhancing solar with nuclear. Your posts are the ones trying to coat tail? another low emission source of energy-- nuclear.

. "... Nuclear energy should be judged on its own merit taking into account the huge problems associated with the nuclear energy ..."

20% of the lowest emission electricity in the most power hungry nation on Earth comes from a handful of nuclear reactors, at very affordable rates. You've been lied to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/mar/31/double-standards-nuclear

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/apr/13/anti-nuclear-lobby-interrogate-beliefs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/27/why-choose-nuclear-renewable-energy

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/09/renewables-are-not-sufficient-p1/

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/12/renewables-are-not-sufficient-p2/
Comment
52 of 52
November 14, 2011
Seattle has some of the best and most hydro in the USA. Each are has a good source of Renewable Energy. Hydro is also 24/7 to cover the small amount needed Off Peak.

In a few places like Hawaii they have solar, wind, hydro, waves, current and even geo-Thermal yet they used to use 90% of their electric from imported OIL. Now they are finally starting to make use of the energy they have had right under their nose.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Large Scale Solar

Distributed with Renewable Energy World Magazine to a global readership, Renewable Energy World’s Large Scale Solar supplement provides insight, information and trends for decision makers in the solar sector. With in depth fea... more »

 

Advertise With Us

Dow Solar Blue Sky Energy, Inc. The Interstate Renewable Energy Council North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Schneider Electric Helios Solar Works Growth Energy
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters